Buslist longhorn1969 So what is the latest news or rumors on the midwest order? Going out for rebid? Different specs? Who built the California cars? Do not see Siemens double decker as a suitable alternative to for all intents and purposes a Superliner Coach . i think until the $ are figured out (what does Nippon Shario pay for default, and can the Federal grant be extended) we won't know much, can a rebid go out before the $ are secure? I would guess the revised specs. if any, would be available.
longhorn1969 So what is the latest news or rumors on the midwest order? Going out for rebid? Different specs? Who built the California cars? Do not see Siemens double decker as a suitable alternative to for all intents and purposes a Superliner Coach .
So what is the latest news or rumors on the midwest order? Going out for rebid? Different specs? Who built the California cars?
Do not see Siemens double decker as a suitable alternative to for all intents and purposes a Superliner Coach .
i think until the $ are figured out (what does Nippon Shario pay for default, and can the Federal grant be extended) we won't know much, can a rebid go out before the $ are secure? I would guess the revised specs. if any, would be available.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
The following Illinois government document "IF" true is interesting. Will leave comments to others.
https://www.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Bi-level%20Railcar%20Procurement.pdf
As well look at the following on big page - 11 Small page 21
http://miprc.org/Portals/7/pdfs/MIPRC%20presentation%20for%20congressional%20staff_052217_final.pdf?ver=2017-06-02-161342-390
blue streak 1 The following Illinois government document "IF" true is interesting. Will leave comments to others. https://www.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Bi-level%20Railcar%20Procurement.pdf As well look at the following on big page - 11 Small page 21 http://miprc.org/Portals/7/pdfs/MIPRC%20presentation%20for%20congressional%20staff_052217_final.pdf?ver=2017-06-02-161342-390
If true single level cars as predicted. I suppose they will be similar to Bright Line's equipment.
Seems like not much of an "If" about it. CALDOT has done so and the rest will follow with Siemens single level cars.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm blue streak 1 The following Illinois government document "IF" true is interesting. Will leave comments to others. https://www.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Bi-level%20Railcar%20Procurement.pdf As well look at the following on big page - 11 Small page 21 http://miprc.org/Portals/7/pdfs/MIPRC%20presentation%20for%20congressional%20staff_052217_final.pdf?ver=2017-06-02-161342-390 Seems like not much of an "If" about it. CALDOT has done so and the rest will follow with Siemens single level cars.
The if in my mind comes from the fact that I haven't seen word 1 in the trade press about this. It's the kind of thing they would normally be all over, unless I somehow missed it.
Caltrans represents the consortium in this transaction so others have already followed.
800,000 lb crash test? Do buses have to endure a 800,000 pound crash test? The best way to crash proof a railroad car is not to have a accident in the first place.
I find it extremely odd that the first document states it would take 5 years before production of a bi-level car from Siemens vs 24 - 34 months for a single level car. Just exactly how much trouble is it to take your single level car and double it, and even if you go with single level vs double then the order should increase from 130 cars to 260 in order to meet the same capacity. After all the cost of a single leve car should be significanly less than a bi-level car, unless they're not counting on any Federal funds and the existing appropriated State funds only cover the cost of 130 single level cars. As for this being in the trade press, I do beleive it was mentioned by Railway Age online when the announcement was made as I now recall having seen it before.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR I find it extremely odd that the first document states it would take 5 years before production of a bi-level car from Siemens vs 24 - 34 months for a single level car. Just exactly how much trouble is it to take your single level car and double it, and even if you go with single level vs double then the order should increase from 130 cars to 260 in order to meet the same capacity. After all the cost of a single leve car should be significanly less than a bi-level car, unless they're not counting on any Federal funds and the existing appropriated State funds only cover the cost of 130 single level cars. As for this being in the trade press, I do beleive it was mentioned by Railway Age online when the announcement was made as I now recall having seen it before.
Others (Buslist, RME) would know far better than I, but making a bilevel out of a single level car has rather more design and engineering involved than merely "doubling it" as you suggest. And most bilevels do not have twice the capacity of comparable single level coaches.
A couple of points, a bilevel car would be a completely new design. Siemens experience in Europe is only partly applicable, as the FRA squeeze Standards don't apply there. A North American Siemens single level car already exists as in the Bright Line stock. And no, building a bilevel car just isn't that easy, although if anyone could you would think it would be NS with all their gallery car experience.
The contract between the states and and the builder was probably for a specific number of cars, not seats. Modification to include more cars would probably require a new contract with all the red tape that implies as well as potential loss of the FRA grant.
Did a major search in Age, Progressive, IRJ etc and found nothing. In fact as late as June 29 of this year there was an article on NS's dedication to completing this order.
The Siemens single level car might be a fast expedient but it just trashes all the design and standardization guidance that Amtrak spent on the effort of a standardized car design for specific types of service. Also, throws the hoped for economies of scale of that former effort out the window as well. So I think it is a much larger setback than most would think.
The unmodified Siemens design means longer platforms, longer station dwell times, more cars to carry the same amount of passengers than bilevels, etc. Also, added........a whole new type of car to maintain to add to Amtraks growing collection of brands and types.
CMStPnPThe unmodified Siemens design means...longer station dwell times,
Why should that be?
Not necessarily longer station dwell times. Indeed, the one modification possible will probably be doors at both ends of the cars, and this should allow single-level cars to load faster than the typical bilevel.
But longer station platforms for longer trains to accomodate the same number of passengers, and higher costs because of the longer trains, and differen parts and......and....and
If platforms can't be lengthened, then more trains must be operated and costs go even higher.
daveklepper Not necessarily longer station dwell times. Indeed, the one modification possible will probably be doors at both ends of the cars, and this should allow single-level cars to load faster than the typical bilevel. But longer station platforms for longer trains to accomodate the same number of passengers, and higher costs because of the longer trains, and differen parts and......and....and If platforms can't be lengthened, then more trains must be operated and costs go even higher.
Unfortunately, vestibules at both ends only work when there is crew available to work them. Amtrak's practice is that only one or two doors will be opened for low level platforms and single level coaches.
When I was riding in Australia and New Zealand last spring, station stops were "all hands on deck". Everyone, even the cafe car attendant, worked the station stops.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
As I recall, when I rode the GM&O's Chicago-Joliet train 46 years ago, the doors were left open and the traps were left up. However, this is not a safe practice.
Johnny
Deggesty As I recall, when I rode the GM&O's Chicago-Joliet train 46 years ago, the doors were left open and the traps were left up. However, this is not a safe practice.
when the Wabash train was cut back from Decatur to Orland Park, all the doors and traps were removed. I'm not sure of the situation whan N&W replaced the heavy weights with light weight equipment.
CMStPnP The Siemens single level car might be a fast expedient but it just trashes all the design and standardization guidance that Amtrak spent on the effort of a standardized car design for specific types of service. Also, throws the hoped for economies of scale of that former effort out the window as well. So I think it is a much larger setback than most would think. The unmodified Siemens design means longer platforms, longer station dwell times, more cars to carry the same amount of passengers than bilevels, etc. Also, added........a whole new type of car to maintain to add to Amtraks growing collection of brands and types.
And the bi-levels wouldn't be a new type of car?
In my discussions with the powers that be I don't think they would think it's a setback. As I posted earlier some of the states seemed to be having buyers remorse over the bi-level choice.
Your standardization worry goes out out the window if this becomes the new standard (which is quite likely). What were the proposed Bi-levels standard with?
This Viaggio Comfort will be the defacto standard, outside of Viewliner cars, what other off the shelf car do you think Amtrak is looking at to replace 400 or so Amfleet cars? Talk about economies of scale?
And frankly, with Amtrak not spending much on LD trains, would not be suprised if the former Delta now Amtrak number driven CEO, thinks it might be a good idea to replace Superliners with Viewliners.
Buslist CMStPnP The Siemens single level car might be a fast expedient but it just trashes all the design and standardization guidance that Amtrak spent on the effort of a standardized car design for specific types of service. Also, throws the hoped for economies of scale of that former effort out the window as well. So I think it is a much larger setback than most would think. The unmodified Siemens design means longer platforms, longer station dwell times, more cars to carry the same amount of passengers than bilevels, etc. Also, added........a whole new type of car to maintain to add to Amtraks growing collection of brands and types. And the bi-levels wouldn't be a new type of car? In my discussions with the powers that be I don't think they would think it's a setback. As I posted earlier some of the states seemed to be having buyers remorse over the bi-level choice. Your standardization worry goes out out the window if this becomes the new standard (which is quite likely). What were the proposed Bi-levels standard with?
I initially read that Idot document too
fast. If you look closely you will
notice that it is not yet a done deal (as in signed sealed and delivered) Caltrans has just accepted the idea, probably why no press coverage yet. And this is a subcontract by Siemens to Sumatomo, (the trading company that represents Nippon Sharyo).
This change of subcontractors (and change to single level cars?) is allowed under provision SP7.2 of the contract.
CandOforprogress2 800,000 lb crash test? Do buses have to endure a 800,000 pound crash test? The best way to crash proof a railroad car is not to have a accident in the first place.
Buses aren't governed by the FRA nor do they have in train bus and draft forces Which was the original reason for this spec. FOX (Florida Overland Express) made your argument to the FRA some 20 years ago and as I remember made little progress.
This poster has become somewhat confused about this probable change of builders.
1. Is it the need for additional capacity now one reason for the Siemens single level cars ?
1a. How soon can Siemens deliver the cars ? Maybe Siemens has already started parts procurement ? Even some construction ?
1b. What will they be called V-3s ?
2. Can traps be added to the Brightline type cars without major structural changes ?
3. Since superliners will still be operated on routes at the same time single levels are operated will there not be the ADA requirement for level boardings locations due to superlineers also operating on the route ?
4. Is this just a short term solution for the Nippon (NS) cars being delayed as the one document mentioned 2020 as starting delivery of bi level cars from NS ?
Here is a link to the Siemens Brightline passenger coaches:www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/brightline-Coach-Siemens-2.pdf
According this broschure the coaches are based on the PRIIA single level coaches with deviations required by customer.
The PRIIA bi-level specifications call for 89 seats plus 1 wheelchair parking location, the single-level specifications for 72 seat plus 1 wheelchair parking location.
blue streak 11. Is it the need for additional capacity now one reason for the Siemens single level cars ?
From what I understand NS is not able to fullfil its contract.
blue streak 11a. How soon can Siemens deliver the cars ? Maybe Siemens has already started parts procurement ? Even some construction ?
As said above start in 24 to 36 month.
blue streak 12. Can traps be added to the Brightline type cars without major structural changes ?
When I look at the Brightliner coach broschure it state on page 5: Provisions designed in the car body to mount a lower level step assembly and a trap door to allow low level boarding
blue streak 13. Since superliners will still be operated on routes at the same time single levels are operated will there not be the ADA requirement for level boardings locations due to superlineers also operating on the route ?
Again the broschure states (page 3): Fulfill Latest Standards- Standardized coach with flexibility for customer needs, complies with ADA requirementsRegards; Volker
Evidently the release of the statement has been retracted by Illinois DOT. Appears no one noticed the contents of the minutes as being confidential so we will have to wait. Can post the contents from other sites but will wait ...
VOLKER LANDWEHR Here is a link to the Siemens Brightline passenger coaches:www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/brightline-Coach-Siemens-2.pdf According this broschure the coaches are based on the PRIIA single level coaches with deviations required by customer. The PRIIA bi-level specifications call for 89 seats plus 1 wheelchair parking location, the single-level specifications for 72 seat plus 1 wheelchair parking location. ~snip~ Regards; Volker
~snip~
Regards; Volker
A 17 seat difference between single-level and bi-level is attrocious, they should've never gone with a bi-level design from the get-go unless you're looking at between 110 - 120 seats with space for one wheelchar(that's all that is needed under ADA requirements). You're looking at the difference between 11,570 seats for the bi-levels and 9,360 for single-level, that's a loss of 2,210 seating capacity, which would require an additional 31 cars...that should be easily covered by the difference in price between the bi-level and single-level, unless the Siemens single-level is the same price as the N-S bi-level.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR VOLKER LANDWEHR Here is a link to the Siemens Brightline passenger coaches:www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/brightline-Coach-Siemens-2.pdf According this broschure the coaches are based on the PRIIA single level coaches with deviations required by customer. The PRIIA bi-level specifications call for 89 seats plus 1 wheelchair parking location, the single-level specifications for 72 seat plus 1 wheelchair parking location. ~snip~ Regards; Volker A 17 seat difference between single-level and bi-level is attrocious, they should've never gone with a bi-level design from the get-go unless you're looking at between 110 - 120 seats with space for one wheelchar(that's all that is needed under ADA requirements). You're looking at the difference between 11,570 seats for the bi-levels and 9,360 for single-level, that's a loss of 2,210 seating capacity, which would require an additional 31 cars...that should be easily covered by the difference in price between the bi-level and single-level, unless the Siemens single-level is the same price and the N-S bi-level.
A 17 seat difference between single-level and bi-level is attrocious, they should've never gone with a bi-level design from the get-go unless you're looking at between 110 - 120 seats with space for one wheelchar(that's all that is needed under ADA requirements). You're looking at the difference between 11,570 seats for the bi-levels and 9,360 for single-level, that's a loss of 2,210 seating capacity, which would require an additional 31 cars...that should be easily covered by the difference in price between the bi-level and single-level, unless the Siemens single-level is the same price and the N-S bi-level.
The California bi-levels are 89 and 90 seats. I'm not sure where we'd get 120 seats into them without airline style seat pitch.
As far as I can tell from the sketchy information out there is that there will be no price difference. Siemens had bid considerably higher initially for the bi-level design. On another board someone quoted a Siemens official that the Nippon Shario bid would be impossible to build at that price. Perhaps more truth than sour grapes at the time.
BTW on that other board someone blamed the failure of the squeeze test sample car on the low weight requirement for these cars. They aren't that different from the California cars are they?
By way of comparison, the gallery bi-levels that C&NW used on the "Peninsula 400" and "Flambeau 400" had 96 seats. Gallery bi-levels in suburban service have 145 to 162 seats.
BuslistBTW on that other board someone blamed the failure of the squeeze test sample car on the low weight requirement for these cars. They aren't that different from the California cars are they?
The bi-level coach is limited to a dry weight of 150,000lbs. I don't know how this compares to the California cars.
The California cars don't have crash energy management (CEM) elements.
Here is the carbody that failed the 800,000 lbs compression test:http://trn.trains.com/~/media/images/railroad-news/news-wire/2016-and-prior/2015/09/nippon.jpg?mw=1000&mh=800
The distance between draft line and car floor together with the 800,000 lbs cause a moment that has to be carried somehow. If the floor alone is not able to carry load and moment, the side walls have to carry part of it like a monocoque. In this construction you have to fit the CEM elements without compromising the buff strength.Regards, Volker
I still say the 800,000 lb crash test is an arbitrary number that the FRA came up with, without having any solid background that it's the minimum needed for survivability. Especially since there are quite a few other factors that go into the equation, such as how well the seats remain attached to the floor, flying suitcases, debris puncturing through the walls/windows, fire, etc., etc.. That is probably one regulation that needs to be reviewed, with significat scientific studies done at different levels, from 400k up to 800k in 50k intervals, in my opinion.
In the mean time, if I was in charge of N-S I'd continue to have my engineers work on a design that would meet the existing FRA requirements, whether I had orders in place or not, because if you design it and it's on the books then the orders might just materialize.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JRI still say the 800,000 lb crash test is an arbitrary number that the FRA came up with, without having any solid background that it's the minimum needed for survivability.
The 800,000 lbs buff load requirement is much older than FRA (founded 1966).
In a thread about diesel locomotive crashworthiness ( http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/741/t/264463.aspx ) I wrote the following:
I found that the earliest requirements were PRR passenger cars with a buff load of 200.000 lbs in 1906 followed by RPO cars with 400,000lbs in 1912. It was later doubled to 800,000 lbs.
in 1939 the AAR made the 800,000 lbs a Recommended Practice for passenger cars and a Standard 1949 (S-034: Specifications for the Construction of new Passenger Eqipment Cars).
The American philosophy is to allow as little deformation as possible. The European regulations follow the path of the automobile industry using crumple zones. The FRA and the PRIIA certification follow this now but only partly by allowing/requiring CEM elements. "Partly" because they still require the 800.000 lbs buff load.
The European rules give requirements for the energy absorption limiting the actuation forces in the CEM element. The buff load is a bit higher than the CEM's actuation forces and depends on type of vehicle. For a passenger coach it is 441,000 lbs. The deceleration is limited to 5g.
As I said different philosophies.Regards, Volker
From another site-
https://www.narprail.org/news/hotline/hotline-1-031-amtrak-and-metro-houston-suspend-service-officials-find-a-way-forward-for-new-equipment-for-california-and/
BuslistAnd the bi-levels wouldn't be a new type of car?
My understanding was the Midwest Corridor Cars were based on the California Surf-Liner car type with just a few modifications made to them and they largely followed the Amtrak future standard for corridor cars. Which makes the NS failure to largely apply some reverse engineering to a past car that was already built even more surprising. So not a totally new type of car.
And I am not convinced the Simens single level cars will become the new standard, time will tell. More likely they will become a stand-in expedient as a way to preserve the Federal Grant money.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.